Terrorism

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! Last Monday was eight years ago. We had just stepped off the train in Gothenburg. I had plenty of time and did not feel stressed in the slightest on the way to the hotel where we were to have a meeting with the party board before our large party congress was to start.

Since I had plenty of time and the weather was nice, I found a table at an outdoor cafe and ordered a pasta and something good to drink. But I only managed to take one bite before my friend said: Now it's a truck that has driven into a crowd of people on Drottninggatan.

I want to begin this speech by expressing my deep sympathy for the victims and the relatives of those affected by the terrorist attack on Drottninggatan in Stockholm on April 7, 2017. There are moments that sear themselves into our collective memory forever, and that day is one such moment. I am sure that we share that feeling.

The timing of the attack seemed well-chosen for the goal of harming as many as possible. It was Friday afternoon and crowded on Drottninggatan. A stolen truck was driven in a zigzag pattern to hit as many as possible. I believe we all realized that day that Sweden would never be the same again. It was a brutal attack on many people but also on Sweden's openness. Five people died, and many were injured for life.

The perpetrator fled from the scene but was arrested later that same evening, sentenced to life imprisonment and deportation. The judgment established that the act was an attempt to instill serious fear in the population – a criterion for a terrorist offense according to Swedish legislation.

We Swedes have been struck multiple times. In October 2023, two Swedish football supporters were murdered in Brussels. They were there to celebrate and to experience community and football joy when Sweden met Belgium in a national match, but they never came home. They became targets of a hatred that struck Swedes solely because they were Swedes.

Our country's security has been tested, and it is still being tested. For us Social Democrats, the fight against terrorism is not just about law and order, even though it is an important part. It is also about defending human dignity and protecting lives, our democracy, and the trust that holds society together. It means that we also stand up for a society where no one should have to feel fear for their faith, their origin, how they dress, or what opinions they have.

We also never forget Utøya in Norway, our neighboring country, which was struck by a horrific act of terrorism on July 22, 2011. It was a right-wing extremist terrorist who murdered 77 people – most of them young social democrats who had gathered to talk about justice for the future. It was an attack on our values and on us. And it is not just history for us: It is also a constant reminder of why we can never be silent in the face of hatred and extremism.

Madam Speaker! With this said, we Social Democrats are prepared to do what is necessary to prevent, detect, and avert acts of terrorism. We have, in broad cooperation here in the chamber of the Riksdag, both in government and now as the opposition, contributed to necessary changes in the legislation. Examples can include harsher penalties for terrorist crimes and participation in terrorist organizations, a ban on traveling abroad to participate in armed conflicts on behalf of terrorist organizations, and a strengthening of the security police. Today it sounds obvious, but only a few years ago it was not as pressing.

Today's report clarifies how crucial international cooperation is in combating terrorism. It is a line that we Social Democrats fully stand behind. In the fight against terrorism, there is no room for national navel-gazing. We must cooperate, exchange information, and act together with other democratic states.

But the fight begins here at home. The Swedish Security Service has, in its latest situation assessments, warned that the level of terror threat in Sweden remains elevated. The greatest threat comes, as we understand it, from lone actors – individuals who are often radicalized quickly and silently via the internet and social media. Today, very many are radicalized in that way. We believe that more patrolling police are needed even on the internet. We also need strong preventive work to detect radicalization early and contribute with interventions that prevent hate from turning into violence.

Madam Speaker! With international partners, a strong Säpo, preventive work against radicalization and clear legislation, we can stand up for the Sweden we believe in – open, democratic and free from fears.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! As we have said, we are debating the motion's report on terrorism, and we also receive here a historical account of the Social Democrats' time in power – their two governments that lasted between 2014 and 2022.

We Sweden Democrats were, during the time when we saw the travel to Syria and Iraq, very clear that we must be able to revoke the citizenship of those persons who participate in the terror war in Syria and Iraq and travel from Sweden to slaughter people, burn people in cages and carry out the worst imaginable terrorist attacks.

The Social Democrats, however, chose to welcome those persons back to Sweden. Today, these persons work, for example, in schools with our Swedish children. 25 percent of those who returned are found in our schools. Now that the question is relevant, and I would like to ask the Social Democrats: Do the Social Democrats consider that those who join, for example, Syria, Iraq, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and the like and have dual citizenship – we can make it simple and speak only about those who have dual citizenship – should be allowed to keep their Swedish citizenship and thereby have an unconditional right to be and operate in Sweden and perhaps even work with our children in our schools? Do the Social Democrats still consider this to be a reasonable position?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! My obvious answer is, of course, that no criminals should work in Swedish schools. And as far as I can see from the report, the traveling that the Member speaks of has, thank goodness, decreased to a large extent. That pleases me, and I hope that it is our joint efforts that have contributed to that. But to the extent that it still continues – we know that terrorism continues; that is why we stand for keeping the discussion alive – every such matter must, of course, be assessed.

I am not here to debate Swedish citizenship today. But I believe that we will need to continue to discuss it, yes.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The reason why those who returned from Syria and Iraq could not be convicted of crimes to a significant extent was that the Social Democratic government was very slow to criminalize, for example, traveling to conflict zones. When the first legislation was introduced, it was even permitted to travel to a country of citizenship to participate in a war of terror, something that the Sverigedemokraterna criticized even then.

Only after everyone had finished traveling and returned did the Social Democrats choose to criminalize terror trips to one's own country of citizenship. The reason they could not be convicted of a crime when they finally returned was, therefore, that the Social Democrats were slow to criminalize the actions that led to the horrific terror atrocities in Syria and Iraq.

Now we receive a statement from the Social Democrats that wavers, but I still want to ask the question: Do the Social Democrats consider it important that persons with dual citizenship who have immigrated to Sweden and here exhibit strong sympathies for terrorism should be allowed to retain their Swedish citizenship and thus also be able to act freely in Sweden on the same terms as other Swedish citizens and even work in schools taking care of our Swedish children? Do the Social Democrats consider it an important principle, or is it a principle that the Social Democrats are prepared to reconsider?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand that the Sweden Democrat member much prefers to talk about the Social Democratic government than about the government that his party is currently supporting and cooperating with. But that is not why we are standing here today.

My message is very clear: No criminal shall work in Swedish schools. We shall, of course, not allow that. That is my clear answer to that question.

I am not the one seeking conflict here. I would rather seek cooperation and collaboration. But I understand that the Sweden Democrats live off that conflict, and I will not enter into it. I hope that we, even in the Committee on Justice, in the best of harmony will find good solutions moving forward to counter terrorism and crime and ensure that it is well-educated, good educators who work in Swedish schools.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! To protect us against terrorism is to protect our democracy – the democracy that is built on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of demonstration and freedom of the press and, not to be forgotten in these days, academic freedom. It is a democracy that is built on openness and transparency, on the absence of corruption with bribes, nepotism and insiders who exploit their situation. It is a democracy that is built on free elections, separation of powers and accountability.

This may seem like self-evident truths and it should be so. But we all know that is not the case. Terrorism is acts aimed at seriously harming a state or intergovernmental organization and instilling serious fear in a population or population group.

The purpose is to change the constitutional order or at least influence the political agenda in favor of their own political, ideological or, in that respect, religious agenda. Terrorism is in many ways the opposite of democracy.

Terrorism takes different forms. We also know that it has very recently taken new paths. It takes help from the siblings of terror, which are states and agents of states who spy on other states, and also serious organized crime, where they stand ready with their capital of violence. This group of siblings has begun to cooperate with devastating results.

We also see different forms of terrorism and violence-promoting extremism, with their different purposes. It is important to remind oneself that there is not one kind of terrorism. It is Islamist. It is right-wing. It is left-wing. There are different variants. They often drive lone actors with deadly and devastating results.

It means that this must be countered in many different ways. What is needed, among other things, is an efficient state apparatus where the right person and the right authority have the right information at the right time. This means that we need to create alliances of good forces. Therefore, from Centerpartiet, we see that we need to cooperate more in the EU. We need to cooperate bilaterally with countries that we trust, but we also need to have exchanges with organizations.

The EU is an important arena in the work against terrorism. Together, we have better conditions to counter attacks by, for example, sharing intelligence on potentially dangerous, radicalized persons and by stopping the smuggling of weapons and other things that can be used in attacks. Agreements are needed on the EU countries' obligation to provide information on such matters.

Madam Speaker! Another important part of the work ahead is the government inquiry regarding the Security Service's, Säpos, information management. It was said that it would be submitted on April 1, but it will surely be submitted to the government in the coming days.

We have, in fact, a new situation and a new security situation. Here, a legally sound but at the same time effective and usable legislation is needed regarding how we can handle information about suspects so that we can prevent and deter as well as stop and prosecute those who threaten our country's security and safety and who have an agenda other than our democracy.

We also see that the internet and cyberspace are a crime scene when it comes to these crimes. It is important that the possibility to shut down or remove material that drives terrorism and extremism exists. But it is also important to say in this context that it must occur without us removing the possibility of encrypted communication. The Government and S have worked together to, for example, get chat control or other legislation in place. Here, Centerpartiet will follow the developments closely.

Centerpartiet's approach here is exactly the same as when it comes to other crime fighting. It is effective and legally sound tools that are needed, nothing else.

With that, Madam Speaker, the Centre Party moves for approval of the reservation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report on terrorism. When we do this here at the beginning of April, it is difficult not to think back to the anniversary of the horrific terrorist attack on April 7, 2017. Most of us surely remember where we were, how our thoughts were organized, and how difficult it was to understand what had happened.

A terrorist had sworn allegiance to the Islamic State. He obviously should never have been allowed into our country. But he was at large in the middle of Stockholm, despite lacking a residence permit. He also had a deportation order, a decision that he could ignore without any consequences whatsoever. He was in our country and was planning a terrorist attack. In the terrorist attack, five people died, and an entire country had to experience the terror of the ultimate consequences of a terrorist attack.

My thoughts continue to go to those who were injured that day, to the relatives of those who perished, and to all those who were forced to experience this national trauma on the spot.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, we know how it feels when the work against terrorism fails. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we repeatedly debate these issues at a political level here in the Swedish Riksdag – partly to make a responsible government even sharper, and partly to highlight political weaknesses in this assembly that should never be allowed to have political influence again.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are the party that has most clearly pointed out the obvious connection between a naive view on immigration, a saved faith in multiculturalism, and an increased vulnerability to terrorist attacks. That it is just so can, unfortunately, be illustrated with numerous real-life examples.

For example, we know that a quarter of the terrorists who returned to Sweden from the Islamic State began working with children and young people within the school system. That was news that we could learn about in the autumn of 2023. It was, of course, news that the vast majority became very, very upset about. But some who did not become upset were the Social Democrats. That is because the Social Democrats do not want to make a distinction between Swedes, who in my opinion have the right to live in Sweden, and IS terrorists, who in my opinion should be deported headfirst. According to the Social Democrats, all of them have an unconditional right to live and operate in Sweden, on exactly the same terms, guaranteed by a Swedish citizenship.

A natural consequence of the fact that no IS terrorist would be imprisoned and deported was, of course, that they would be reintegrated into Swedish society.

Do I need to say that there is something in the ideology from which the Social Democrats draw their sustenance that makes them a bit naive?

The two most recent Social Democratic governments refused to enact legislation that would make it possible to strip terrorists of their citizenship so that we could deport them for life from our country.

I think this illustrates the difference between the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats in a good way.

In our Sweden, we do not let in illegal migrants who may have a hidden terror agenda. We want to strip them of their citizenship if they have managed to enter our country, and we want to deport them for life from our country. The Social Democrats, on the contrary, want to welcome them here and give them Swedish citizenship that can never be questioned. They also want to let IS terrorists work in our schools with our Swedish children.

Madam Speaker! There is, of course, much to debate within the framework of terrorism. Different radical environments are developing rapidly. It is about how we are to meet new phenomena where gang crime becomes part of other states' extended arm to carry out attacks in Sweden. We have given the security policy situation a strained situation with a threat from Russia. It is a variation of both short-term and long-term vulnerabilities and direct threats.

Much work is being done to handle all of this, and many attacks are fortunately prevented thanks to well-founded intelligence work, not least in close cooperation with other countries.

In the preparatory remarks, there is a more detailed account of the details. Therefore, I feel very secure in moving to reject the Centerpartiets motion and otherwise moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! We are now discussing, as has already been mentioned from this rostrum, the Committee on Justice's motion report on terrorism issues. There is only one reservation in the report. I can therefore state initially that there appears to be a broad consensus behind the government's policy in the area, and I find that very pleasing.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's security situation has changed and deteriorated over a longer period. Today we face three main, parallel threats to our internal security: terrorism and violent extremism, various state actors acting hostilely towards Sweden, and serious organized crime.

The level of terror threat remains elevated and is at a four on a five-point scale. During the past year, Sweden moved from being a prioritized target in propaganda to being regarded again as a legitimate target for Islamist terrorist organizations. There are also uncertainty factors in the global environment that affect the terror threat.

The primary terrorist threat to Sweden is assessed to come from lone actors acting out of violent Islamism or alternatively violent right-wing extremism. Ideological hybrids also occur in the form of violent extremists using each other's ideologies. We also see increased connections between state actors, network criminals, and individuals with various ideological motives.

Madam Speaker! Terrorism in modern times has been carried out for many different purposes with different methods, ranging from airplane hijackings to lone individuals who indiscriminately kill civilians with firearms or vehicles. During the 1970s and 80s, separatist groups such as the IRA in the UK and Eta in Spain were responsible for many attacks. In more recent times, a large number of attacks have been carried out by groups or individuals with links to violent Islamism, both in Europe and globally. We have also experienced a number of very serious attacks committed with motives linked to violent far-right extremism.

Madam Speaker! Nor even Sweden has escaped from terrorism. It is this week eight years since a truck at high speed drove into Drottninggatan and five people lost their lives. The perpetrator was later convicted of, among other things, terrorist offenses.

Common to all forms of terrorism is the systematic and ruthless use of violence or destruction in order to thereby instill fear in a population. The violence often affects people randomly because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Madam Speaker! Swedish legislation against terrorism was for a long time seriously neglected, which we Moderates criticized for many years in opposition. After many years of waiting, the current terrorist crime act entered into force in 2022. At the same time, the act on special control of certain foreigners entered into force.

We Moderates welcomed the new laws but noted that several problems simultaneously remained unresolved, such as the fact that the sentencing scales for several crimes were far too mild. Two years ago, participation in terrorist organizations was also finally criminalized.

Sweden now, admittedly, has extensive legislation regarding terrorist crimes. But the work to further strengthen the protection against terrorism needs to continue. The current government has therefore appointed an inquiry into strengthened protection against foreigners who constitute qualified security threats or who have links to criminal networks. Regarding those foreigners who constitute qualified threats to Sweden's security, the investigator shall, among other things, take a position on whether the conditions for taking a foreigner into custody should be expanded and propose longer detention periods as well as propose expanded possibilities to use coercive measures.

The investigator shall also analyze the legal conditions for deciding on deportation with regard to Sweden's security and furthermore submit proposals that entail increased possibilities to apply the Act on Special Control of Certain Foreigners, even in cases where a foreigner indirectly constitutes a qualified threat to Sweden's security.

This is completely in line with the criticism that the Moderaterna, among others, directed towards the then Social Democratic government in connection with the processing of the new law in the Riksdag in the spring of 2022. The investigation is to be handed over to the government this autumn.

Madam Speaker! The threat of terrorism varies as said over time, in terms of both actors and intensity. However, it has been constantly present in Sweden and in our surrounding world during the last decades. Many other countries have lived with high levels of terror threats for a long time, but there society as a whole has been able to continue functioning as normal. We in Sweden must also manage this, while the work to combat the threat of terrorism continues with undiminished force.

The work of protecting society against violent extremism and terrorism must therefore be persistent, long-term, and strategic. Having goals and directions in a national strategy has been a success factor in that work. The Government therefore decided last year on a new strategy against violent extremism and terrorism. The work shall be based on four clear strategic areas: to prevent violent extremism and terrorism, to prevent terrorist attacks and other ideologically motivated crimes, to protect society's people and functions, and to manage the situation during and after an attack.

We already see, one year after the strategy was decided, how it mobilizes the strength in our society and that several agencies have taken measures as a result of the strategy.

Finally, Madam Speaker, the sharpened security situation and the increased threat profile against Sweden, including from violent Islamism, as well as new legislation, mean that it is important to ensure that the Swedish Security Service has sufficient financial resources for its mission. The Government has therefore allocated significant resources to the Swedish Security Service. From 2022 to 2027, the Swedish Security Service's budget will increase by nearly 70 percent – from 1.8 billion kronor in 2022 to 3.1 billion kronor in 2027.

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be characterized by openness and values such as freedom, democracy and respect for fundamental human freedoms and rights. People shall be able to move safely and freely, participate in gatherings and express their opinions without fear of being subjected to threats or violence. The work against terrorism is therefore central to protecting our way of life in a free, democratic society.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet also stands behind the committee's proposal in the report. At the same time, we continue to wish for both more and stronger preventive measures. The committee presents examples of important international collaborations where Sweden contributes and also receives better protection within the framework of particularly the UN and the EU.

But we must also do more at home. Recruitment often occurs online, including in grooming groups, as several reports show. There is, for example, a report from Sverok called Extremister i gaming världen, where a survey found that every tenth young person who ever plays video games online had encountered attempts at recruitment by anti-democratic movements. Expo has also expressed concern about how right-wing extremists misuse platforms in the report Fulspel i spelrummet.

As a counterforce exists within the EU's TCO Regulation, which, among other things, means that the network can be "cleansed" of certain terrorist content. In that case, it is the Swedish Police Authority that may have the right to issue an order to a hosting service provider, a platform, to remove certain terrorist content or make it inaccessible. A relatively recent evaluation has been conducted showing that decisions have been made on more such orders and that material has been removed.

I have also found it surprising that, from a European perspective, some view Sweden as a pioneer when it comes to online crime fighting. This has been stated by, among others, Europol's spokesperson Claire Georges. We should perhaps be proud of that, but at the same time, we must realize that much more needs to be done in that arena – however, not in the form of chat control.

I also want to mention Säpo as an important counterforce, but much more is still required. We must work preventatively by reducing growth and, above all, influencing the risks of radicalization, especially among children and young people. We must increase resilience against disinformation, false rumors, and violence-promoting extremist propaganda.

A good education in a safe and secure school that works with the school's democratic mission can prevent young people from becoming involved in violent extremism and terrorism. The school can also make a great difference for children who risk falling into a violent extremist environment.

The Center against Violent Extremism, CVE, has participated in the development of strategies to counter the influence of, among other things, violent extremist authorities and actors. Schools need support, and we have also seen examples of this, even if it has not been about terrorism but still extremism and violence. This concerns support to develop the ability to detect and prevent children and young people from being radicalized.

CVE offers municipalities support, including through a mobile support team and telephone. Methodological support has primarily been aimed at those working within social services, but now the support, based on the government's mandate, can be specialized for use within the school system.

I also want to touch upon defector activities and highlight important examples from civil society. Fryshuset already started a defector support during the 80s and 90s called Exit. The creation of Exit was triggered by those who were then called skinheads and other activists in the white power movement. Fryshuset received important support from, among others, the Holocaust survivor Emerich Roth.

Exit still exists and has been broadened, and Exit now helps people who want to leave violent radical, nationalistic or religious groups.

It is of course also important that we ask ourselves what the reasons are for people being recruited into violent extremist groups and terrorism. It is my conviction that we must reduce segregation and exclusion and increase efforts for social justice. It is an important barrier against recruitment.

I also want to express my concern that prisons constitute a serious breeding ground for radicalization. The risks there due to double-housing and overcrowding mean that the recidivism prevention work is challenged and depleted. The staff is under pressure and does not always have time, and furthermore, there are not always premises for education and treatment. The risk exists then that the person who is released continues to be dangerous due to radicalization or becomes even more hateful. There is also a risk that more have been radicalized during the prison sentence.

I also want to address an issue that I believe the vast majority are aware of, namely what I call the elephant in the room. We rarely mention that there is an extreme dominance of men in the arena, just as in violent crime in general. There are research overviews, including Men, masculinity and violent extremism, which cover values surrounding gender, that women and men are perceived as different and that violence is triggered by a destructive masculinity. This is dangerous and is something we can address broadly in society. The researchers show in the report that violent extremism and terrorism are significant for the violence prevention work against men's violence against women and vice versa.

I read a newsletter today from the Crime Victim Authority. They are inviting people to a seminar on the connection between gang crime and boys who have experienced or been subjected to violence in close relationships. We have much left to do and much to gain through strong preventive work.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I take this opportunity. A few weeks ago, we handled the matter regarding the special control of certain foreigners who can be deported at the initiative of the Security Service. The law was previously called the Act on Special Foreigner Control, and the law is now called the Act on Special Control of Certain Foreigners. I believe it is familiar to the member.

Vänsterpartiet had a specific statement in the communication based on previous opposition to how the law functions today, namely that the Security Service can initiate a case which is then reviewed by the migration court. Finally, a decision is made by the government, if the case is reviewed that far.

Vänsterpartiet has wanted these matters to be decided in administrative court and that all evidence that Säkerhetspolisen has as a basis for its deportation application should be made available to the public. This is something that would truly make it difficult for Säkerhetspolisen to actually conduct its operations when they are forced to expose their intelligence. I do not believe that Säkerhetspolisen would bring forward any cases if they were forced to expose how they work to obtain their intelligence.

I would like to know whether the Left Party's demand to refer cases to an administrative court would be a demand that the Left Party will pose on a red-green government, or if it is an opinion that the Left Party is content to keep to itself.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Adam Marttinen for the question.

We have for several years demanded legal certainty in general. We believe that it should also apply in such an important issue. We believe that a court review is required, not that it should solely be a decision by the government – which inevitably becomes a political instance.

Regarding how we proceed, Adam Marttinen mentioned that all evidence would be presented there. It can reasonably not take place completely openly and publicly. But one could at least bring up the essential evidentiary requirements, so that the defense counsel and the person who is suspected have the opportunity to respond to it. It is actually the prerequisite for a legally secure process that we want to achieve by demanding a court review.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that there is clarity and consistency in the Left Party's position on the issue. It makes it easier to debate.

The perception is crystal clear. The Security Service will not want to bring up any cases where their intelligence is exposed in public court. This is a setup that has functioned relatively well over the years.

But my question was perhaps not whether the Left Party maintains its position on the issue. Since we now know that Magdalena Andersson does not say no to the Left Party in a future government, I wonder a little, on the theme of security and terrorism, whether the Left Party will raise such a demand against a red-green government. In that way, one would jeopardize the possibility that exists today to be able, under very strict conditions, to deport persons who constitute a threat to the state's security.

I think it is a good opportunity that the Security Service has today. It should be used more. But with the Left Party's policy, it becomes more difficult for Sweden to deport foreigners who constitute a security threat, under the conditions that the law describes today.

Is it a requirement that Vänsterpartiet will set in order to be able to join a red-green government?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Adam Marttinen, for a precise question!

First and foremost, I believe we are all aware that if there is to be a government cooperation, regardless of the constellation, negotiations are required. Vänsterpartiet is far from having a list of demands ready, that we would wish for this and that as a prerequisite for entering a red-green government. We wish to do so, but the list of demands is not ready. Thus, I leave it open as to whether this would be something included in our list of demands.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by confirming what Member Nordborg raises regarding the importance of the work carried out by CVE, the Center against Violence-Promoting Extremism. We are in complete agreement that it is very important work.

We also see that much of the historical crime prevention offensive that the government is now carrying out also has significance regarding recruitment to violent extremism. There, I believe we are in agreement in large part.

In recent years, however, Vänsterpartiet has consistently voted no to almost every tightening of Swedish terrorist legislation. It would not be a major concern if it were only Vänsterpartiet voting no. But we know that Vänsterpartiet is very offensive and determined that they want to be part of a future red-green government, should the worst happen.

The government is now in a position where we are preparing tightenings of the law on special control of certain foreigners. If this legislative product were to be on the table of a newly appointed red-green government where Vänsterpartiet is included, will Vänsterpartiet then block tightenings of Swedish terrorist crime legislation?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damsgaard, for the question!

I am glad that we are in complete agreement on expressing praise to Center against violent extremism. They are doing an immensely valuable work. That work should receive additional financial support, so that the resources of municipalities and regions can be strengthened so that the proposed measures coming through, among other things, from Center against violent extremism can truly be implemented.

Regarding the question, I can say again, as I answered in the previous exchange of remarks, that nothing is decided about what will be on a potential list of demands before a potential red-green government.

A red-green government would be a blessing, I think, for our party and for Sweden, not a misfortune. But then our distinct political views will become very clear. We do not prioritize in the same way. I am convinced that together in a red-green majority we can implement very important changes for Sweden, and they might pull the rug out from under us because we would need to discuss stricter legislation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! I fully understand that government negotiations must be allowed to proceed. But it is nevertheless interesting to discuss and take part in the member's view of the Left Party's red lines. This is an issue where the Left Party has consistently voted no in a very ideological and – if I may say so – still upright way, even though we have completely different perspectives and approaches to the issue.

It would therefore be interesting to receive the member's own view on whether this is an issue where Vänsterpartiet could yield because the Socialdemokrater want something else, or if one will stand up for one's principles and one's view in such a government formation.

I am also curious regarding the issue of revocation of citizenship due to terrorist crimes, which has been raised earlier in the debate. The Committee on the Constitution recently submitted a proposal to create certain possibilities for this. Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet reserved their views against the committee's proposal.

Does the member consider it reasonable that a person with dual citizenship who has committed very serious crime, and who is under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, should nevertheless be able to retain their Swedish citizenship and return to live in Sweden?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damsgaard, for even sharper and clearer questions!

I want to return to the point about context when it comes to which negotiations would come up before a potential red-green government. I am not sure that this will be one of the very most important issues. It might not even be on a list in the negotiations. It remains to be seen.

My personal values, which we actually shouldn't bring up in these political contexts, are that I am critical of the fact that the possibility for those who are immigrants to stay in Sweden is constantly being reduced. When it comes to this example, if it were to be a very serious terrorist crime, I believe that I too could imagine that the person is deported.

I think, however, again, that we sometimes end up incredibly wrong in the Justice Committee. We are, in and of itself, tasked with handling primarily legislative issues. But where do our values go? What should we appreciate? What should we value highly?

We agree that we distance ourselves from the terrorist attack that took place on Drottninggatan, which has been mentioned several times in the debate here today. But we have commemorated the memory of it with a monument that is filled with warmth and honors the solidarity that emerged as an immense counterforce to the terrorist attack. It is such solidarity I want to see grow in Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Violence-oriented extremism and terrorism constitute one of our time's greatest threats to people's safety and, in the long run, also to our democracy. The terror threat weighs heavily over many countries, and Sweden is in no way exempt. Several speakers before me have mentioned the events on Drottninggatan, but I also want to remind of the suicide bomber who triggered the explosive by mistake and caused his own death. Remember also that we have persons born and raised in Sweden who have joined IS and participated in horrific terrorist crimes in, among other places, Paris and Brussels. Also remember Lars Vilks, who was subjected to assassination attempts on several occasions because he presented a caricature of Mohammed and was forced to have bodyguards for the rest of his life.

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces an increased threat profile today, partly due to regimes in other countries acting hostiley, but we are also experiencing a radicalization and polarization in our own country that reinforces the threat profile. What further builds upon the threat is the close link between terrorism and the organized crime that has taken hold in our country and causes death and destruction. These are tangible and concrete threats to the safety of individuals. They also affect the business sector and the public sector.

Clear links exist to the regime in Iran, which, through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, IRGC, plans and initiates actions against Israeli targets in Sweden where Swedish criminal gangs have been used as proxies. IRGC has between 150,000 and 190,000 employees. A part of IRGC is composed of Quds Force, with between 5,000 and 15,000 employees, handpicked from IRGC for their competence and their loyalty to the regime. IRGC's Quds Force targets American, Israeli, Saudi, and United Arab Emirates interests as well as against Iranian dissenting groups in Iran and the Iranian diaspora.

IRGC suspected of planning murders of Swedish Jews. Two secret agents linked to the Iranian intelligence service mapped out three intended murder victims. In April 2021, a couple in the Stockholm area was arrested, suspected of involvement in terrorist crimes. The couple was deported, and much points to them having had the Iranian regime's mission to map out and murder Swedish Jews. They were said to have come far in their planning when they were arrested, with both images and address details linked to intended victims.

With this said and by reason of a number of other circumstances, I and many others, not least from the Iranian diaspora, mean that the European Union should classify IRGC as a terrorist organization.

Madam Speaker! The Government has now presented a new strategy against violence-oriented extremism and terrorism within four areas: prevent, deter, protect, and manage. All areas are, of course, prioritized, but primarily the focus must be on preventing and deterring crimes with links to such criminality. Within those areas, actions are required from all actors in society. Everyone can and must contribute to the best of their ability.

In a larger perspective, good and close cooperation across national borders is required, especially within the framework of European cooperation in Europol and Eurojust in collaboration with the member states' security services. Such work is crucial for success in proactive work.

Säpo highlights today three groupings with links to violence-seeking extremism and terrorism that have the capacity to carry out acts of terror: Islamism, right-wing extremism, and left-wing extremism. But there are also other forms of activism with participants who can be radicalized where there is reason to be vigilant. All groups now mentioned use digital platforms and constantly adapt their messages and methods to attract and recruit, not least our young people.

Madam Speaker! The greatest and most tangible threat today is undeniably posed by violent Islamism. Of the terror attacks in recent years, almost all have been linked to Islamist groups such as IS, al-Qaeda, and al-Shabab. The threat situation against Sweden has also been intensified by events in the country that have been perceived as provocative attacks on Islam and Muslims. External events such as the Israel–Hamas conflict have further widened and strengthened the threat situation, as have unfounded accusations against Sweden and Swedish social services.

To prevent and deter acts of violence and terrorism, as has been said, efforts from all good forces are required. Sweden today has about 60 vulnerable areas, of which more than 20 are considered particularly vulnerable. The areas are characterized by high unemployment, crime, poor school results, other values, and a lack of integration. In that environment, a form of parallel society with its own norms and rules develops and flourishes. Residents in these areas, not least young people, are particularly affected by and susceptible to messages from actors who want to attack and harm our society, who dislike or outright hate our lifestyle and our values, and who want to see a different society based on a different ideology.

Madam Speaker! To break this pattern, substantial increased efforts and a high presence of both police and other actors are required. School, social services, the business community, civic life, and the police must work together to identify, among others, young people who show signs of radicalization. We must track down, identify, and prevent persons who fuel hatred. The subversive activity must be stopped.

Information exchange must be improved and simplified. Persons who do not have the right to stay in our country shall be detained and deported. Permanent residence permits should be revoked if there are grounds for it, and it should also become possible under certain conditions to strip persons of citizenship if they have dual citizenship.

Madam Speaker! With this said, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! In our follow-up motion regarding the government's communication National strategy against violent extremism and terrorism – prevent, deter, protect and respond, we in Miljöpartiet emphasized that preventive work is also central in this area. This naturally requires knowledge of the structural root causes of violent extremism and terrorism and, of course, proposals for measures to combat these. This could, for example, involve interventions to reduce segregation and exclusion as well as for increased social justice. If the root causes are not addressed, the extremist environments will continue to have access to a recruitment base.

In the same motion, we also took up that we consider the strategy should place greater weight on early interventions to catch children and young people who are at risk of, for example, being radicalized or recruited, both in school, social services, and healthcare as well as in the digital environment. More support is also required for parents. It is also of great importance that the state ensures support to civil society organizations that work against radicalization and extremism.

Another important area is the work with preventive measures within the Prison and Probation Service and at the youth homes. This is addressed in the national strategy, and the government emphasizes the importance of preventing radicalization in prison environments to reduce the growth of terrorist crime. The government's focus on the continued work is directed towards the Prison and Probation Service's recidivism prevention work with measures to facilitate exit programs. This is very important. But Miljöpartiet would also like to see more concrete preventive measures in the strategy to prevent people from being radicalized and recruited during their time at institutions or youth homes.

Madam Speaker! Terrorism is a serious threat to the free democratic society that we all cherish. The work against terror must be carried out both in Sweden and in cooperation with other countries.

It is the Swedish Security Service that is responsible for counter-terrorism in Sweden. We were recently there on an interesting study visit. Säpos resources have been strengthened, and several new laws have also been put in place to prevent terrorism.

It is also important that Säpo has sufficient resources to work effectively with counter-terrorism. As Säpo's mandate expands and becomes more complex, we must also strengthen the internal review of the agency's work, so that operations and investigations are carried out in a legally secure manner.

Preventing radicalization to violent extremism is to prevent terrorism. In 2017, the Center against violent extremism was established, which has already been mentioned here several times. Miljöpartiet wants it to be strengthened and given a more operational role. Cooperation with the municipalities is crucial to detect radicalization processes in groups or individuals in time and in places where there is a particularly high risk that radicalization can occur.

Madam Speaker! We need powerful preventive work to reduce the risk that vulnerable, marginalized people become involved in extremist environments. It requires long-term commitment and that the measures implemented are not individual and disconnected.

We want to see a fundamental social justice complemented by a national exit program, as a supplement to the activities carried out in different regions, to facilitate exits from extremist environments. People should not have to feel so socially and economically squeezed that they find extremist environments attractive.

We should also make a special effort to counter the financing of terrorism. This involves both combating the financing of terrorist organizations within Sweden and preventing money from Sweden from contributing to terrorism abroad.

In relation to those goals, international cooperation is extremely important, especially within the EU and through Europol, to map out funding sources and transfer methods. To combat terror financing effectively, we should also strengthen the work against money laundering. The capacity of relevant authorities must be strengthened.

In the national strategy, the government states as a direction that the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Security Service shall continue to develop their cooperation with other authorities and relevant private actors in order to intensify the work of combating the financing of terrorism.

The government also writes that the law enforcement authorities should continue to develop the exchange of knowledge and experience regarding hate crimes and democracy-threatening crime and improve the ability to identify ideological components in different types of crime. Developing the cooperation between actors and the exchange of knowledge and experience is very important, but the government gives no concrete guidance to the authorities on how the work should be developed. Miljöpartiet therefore argues that the letter can be supplemented with more concrete measures.

In conclusion, I want to mention the importance of long-term perspective and consensus in these issues. For the work against violent extremism and terrorism to be effective over time, the political direction must remain stable. Therefore, we think it would be pleasing if the government could take the initiative for a new cross-bloc agreement in this area.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! The topic for today is terrorism. I intended to devote a few minutes to it, and then perhaps primarily to domestic terrorism.

To begin with, terrorism is an act intended to create fear. It is through fear that one wants to influence people, decision-makers, authorities, companies or states. The fear is then intended to make people do what the terrorist wants.

In plain language, the terrorist says: If you don't do what I want, if you don't think like I want, then I will blow you up. I don't care that you are innocent. I don't care if you are children. I will blow you up or I will shoot you. You will die, because you don't think and don't want what I do.

That is what the terrorist says. He or she threatens democracy, threatens the safety in society and threatens people's lives, by committing acts of violence and creating fear.

Domestic terrorism is terrorist acts committed by persons here in Sweden. For many years, I know that in any case within the police, there was not much talk about whether there would be a terror attack in Sweden. More was talked about when there would be a terror attack in Sweden. Now in 2025, we have had a couple of terror attacks, and every year the Swedish Security Service reveals planned attacks in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! It is therefore still highly relevant to talk about the risk of future terrorist attacks. We must not be naive, we must not turn a blind eye, and we must not stop being on our toes when it comes to talking about counter-terrorism.

What I see with concern right now is how young people in Sweden today are increasingly being radicalized. We must talk more openly and soberly about this. It concerns everything from right-wing extremism and religious extremism to conspiracy theories and misogyny. There are many out there who are susceptible to manipulation and influence. They are easy to convince.

On the internet today, everything from hate and propaganda to the glorification of violent attacks is spread. For a young person, perhaps barely a teenager, it can be easy to be swept up. One gets a sense of belonging, one gets a community and one is seen. One gets guidance and perhaps even a meaning with life.

Terrorism

We know that young people are easy to influence. They do not have the same opportunity or ability to question as adults. It is also difficult to reach these young people. They move on forums that, for an adult, a parent, can be difficult to recognize. They can look quite normal. It could be a gaming forum or a TikTok account.

It is small messages that then, not infrequently with the help of an algorithm, grow into more concrete opinions, more radical opinions, and opinions that then become a truth. Suddenly we have a teenager with radical opinions who is prepared to commit violent crimes for the sake of the cause.

We must all work actively against this. We do not want to and we shall not foster terrorists in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! When it finally comes to international terrorism, I say as I have said here in this chamber before: No terrorist shall live, plan or operate in Sweden. A terrorist simply shall not stay in Sweden.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 April.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)